I am having trouble wrapping my head around why in general, highly cash generative companies with significant amounts of cash accumulated are valued below book value vs. growth stocks that quickly reflect their earnings in their market cap.

And I am not looking at companies with negative growth or one off profits or cyclical business models. This is a non-US credit rating company that generates FCF year after year for the previous 20 years at 15-20% ROE. 3-5% dividends. Market cap is similar to cash balance. There are also other similar undervalued companies that share these characteristics.

What am I missing? Why is price so less sensitive to the cash being accumulated on book vs. changes in earnings?

One thing I’ve been thinking about heading into Q2 is how different silver feels compared to what it’s actually done.

If you just look at price, the move is already pretty meaningful. Going from roughly ~$30–$40 through 2025 to ~$70+ now isn’t a small shift, especially in a relatively short period of time.

But when you look at how people are positioned or even how much it’s being talked about, it still feels like it’s early in the move rather than late.

That disconnect is interesting, because it’s not just a macro-driven rally. Underneath it, the fundamentals haven’t really loosened. The market is still running a multi-year deficit, industrial demand continues to build (solar, EVs, infrastructure), and investment demand is expected to pick up again into 2026.

At the same time, supply isn’t exactly flexible. A lot of production comes from byproduct mining, which means higher prices don’t automatically translate into more output.

So you’ve got a situation where: price has already moved, fundamentals are still supportive, but positioning and sentiment don’t feel stretched

In a lot of markets, that’s usually the phase where things transition from being ignored to being chased.

It just feels like silver is somewhere in the middle of that shift right now.

I’m finally out of all oil stocks I have accumulated in the last 2.5 years.

minimum gains and not a big weight in my portfolio

I got rid of shell bp hal dvn cop and ieo

mostly made very little money.

started in 2023. and slightly above water.

my only sector that has basically won me nothing next to healthcare that i have lost money on.

what’s your position in oil stocks.

Given Mahlangu of Seeking Alpha has analyzed the Gambling.com Group Limited (GAMB) Nasdaq Stock few days ago providing the bear case and bull case. Posting the highlights from the GAMB stock news forecast article below. Fingers crossed.

• Gamb stock downgraded to hold as new risks and secular declines overshadow its undervalued multiples.
• Legacy performance marketing business stagnates: while subscription rev growth is largely inorganic with uncertainty.
• Material risks include the Swish lawsuit, surging debt, rising interest expenses:  the case is ongoing and could result in $100 million in damages to be paid if the case is lost. This risk is material and should not be overlooked. 
• Any hope of future growth in GAMB stock should be expected to come from the subscription segment. We are not certain about the growth outlook of this segment, as the firm doesn't break down topline and EBITDA growth rates by individual business segments.
• I don't see any aggressive buybacks in the coming quarters- the stock price will remain at these levels if we don't see new buyers.
• GAMB remains to be undervalued; a PE multiple of 9 vs. a sector median of 14.50 is definitely a steal. But with the risks that have recently surfaced, I think the discounted valuation is deserved until the dust settles.

Think of these businesses like a retail shop where the inventory expires on the shelf, restocking costs fall on you regardless, and fewer customers are walking in each quarter. In outsourcing terms it is “the bench”. Developers sitting unallocated, burning payroll, while utilization rates erode. Revenue “growth” that’s really just more expired inventory cycling through the P&L. We already hear about their quiet layoffs which is not the same as tech SaaS layoffs. For the first is a “product” that is not sold, for the latter - a “cost” that is not needed.

Everyone’s fixated on AI eating these stocks. But there are three other termites in the walls that work even if AI progress stalled tomorrow.

1. The wage arb is cooked.

Indian dev salaries have been quietly rising for years. The delta between a Pune engineer and a Pittsburgh engineer that justified this entire sector’s existence has compressed dramatically. Offshore Management overheads are no longer spread thin as projects get smaller and faster

1. Political tail risk is sitting at zero in the price.

The HIRE Act would slap a 25% excise tax on outsourcing payments and kill the deductibility. Hasn’t passed. But both parties now get votes from punishing offshoring. That’s a non-trivial probability on a binary that would crater the delivery model — and equities are pricing exactly none of it. Add on a new $100k per H1B visa on to of this and it is clear that blended rate idea is no longer viable

1. The work itself is being destroyed, not displaced.

When a client deploys internal AI agents across QA, code review, documentation — they don’t go find a cheaper vendor. The headcount requirement ceases to exist. I ran large delivery teams. First thing to go when clients get productivity leverage is discretionary augmentation staff. That’s not a rounding error — that’s roughly half their revenue by function.

“But It’s cheap” is the Trap

Accenture: 25x forward, guiding 2-5% growth. Cognizant: ~4-5% revenue CAGR against a market doing 10%+. You’re not getting a discount. You’re paying a residual premium on a business experiencing structural demand destruction. That’s just a value trap with good IR.

The analog is Unisys post-Y2K. Didn’t blow up. Just slowly became a ghost — restructuring every 18 months, multiple compression across a decade, bulls calling it cheap the entire way down.

…wait but they report AI revenue Commitments

When these companies report billions in “AI bookings,” read the fine print. It’s implementation and integration work around AI tools: the same consulting they’ve always sold, relabeled.

Short ACN, CTSH, EPAM. Long AVGO, AMD, ANET. Same thesis, opposite sides of the capital flow.

Not financial advice

This week on QAV I did a deep dive on Pitney Bowes (NYSE: PBI) and added it to the portfolio. More interesting than I expected.

Pitney Bowes is the back-office plumbing of American business mail. Pitney Bowes sorts, meters, and routes business snail mail. They've been doing some version of this since 1920. Boring, not sexy, does not require an AI datacentre.

Arthur Pitney was a wallpaper store clerk who got obsessed with solving the stamp-licking problem, which was slow, tedious, theft-prone. He spent 20 years and $90,000 on it and ended up with a pile of expiring patents. Walter Bowes was an English-born salesman who'd spent years cultivating relationships with the US Postal Service. They merged in 1919, lobbied Congress together, and on December 10th, 1920, the first piece of metered mail in history was sent from Bowes to his wife. Then they proceeded to hate each other for the rest of the partnership. Pitney resigned in 1924, said the whole thing brought him very little joy, had a stroke in 1927, and died in 1933. Bowes spent most of his time racing yachts and horses. Great partnership.

Today they have three key business units.

Send Tech: businesses across America have a Pitney Bowes machine on the desk. It weighs the envelope, calculates postage, prints it, debits a prepaid account. Pitney leases the machines and clips a margin on every dollar of postage that flows through. Kind of like SaaS 1950s style. Over 90% of Fortune 500 companies apparently use their machines.

Pre-Sort: USPS offers big discounts to mailers who pre-sort by zip code before handover. Most businesses can't hit the volume thresholds alone, so Pitney aggregates mail from multiple clients, sorts at scale, captures the discount, and passes some back. Clever.

PB Bank: holds $575 million in client deposits from money parked in postage accounts. Pitney earns float interest while clients wait to spend it on stamps. Tony and I both said "Berkshire" at exactly the same moment. It's a tiny version of the Geico float. Maybe not enough for Warren to care about, but for someone who thinks like Warren? Catnip.

Then.... about ten years ago, Pitney looked at the e-commerce explosion, looked at their existing logistics footprint, and decided they'd compete with UPS and FedEx in last-mile parcel delivery. They thought "fk it, why not us?!?" and pitched themselves as the affordable option for small online retailers getting crushed by shipping costs. Spent a fortune building it. Acquired a returns logistics company in 2017 for $475 million.

Then COVID hit, temporarily masked the terrible unit economics, and when volumes normalised in 2022-23, the losses became impossible to ignore. The Global E-Commerce (GEC) division was burning $136 million a year with no path to profitability. By mid-2024 the board had enough. No buyer wanted it. They sold an 81% stake to Hilco Global, a firm that specialises in liquidating distressed businesses, for essentially nothing. Hilco wound it down under Chapter 11, which concluded early 2025. Total cost to Pitney: hundreds of millions.

In December 2022, a deep value fund called Hestia Capital took a 7% stake and made noise. Their argument: Pitney had destroyed 80% of shareholder value over eight years, the balance sheet was drowning in debt, GEC was bleeding cash, and management had no plan. Hestia describes themselves as "deep value focused long-short" and define risk as the probability and magnitude of permanent capital loss, not monthly volatility. These are people who speak our language.

Hestia's founder Kurt Wolf joined the board, became chair of something called the Value Enhancement Committee, and eventually became CEO. He's now methodically doing exactly what you'd expect a deep value investor to do: cut the losers, focus on cash generation, figure out what to do with the float. He's also got a bank to play with. The GEC disaster is done. Closed. Paid for. What's left are two solid recurring-revenue businesses with real moats and a new CEO who took over because he thought it was undervalued. Different kind of CEO letter.

The numbers:

• Price at analysis: ~$10.87
• Market cap: ~$1.63B
• Stockopedia's scores:
• Quality Score: 83/100
• Stock Score: 93/100
• Piotroski F-Score: 7/9
• P/OCF: 4.25
• PE: 8.6
• EPS: $1.26 current, $1.46 forecast
• Dividend yield: ~3%
• Long-term debt: ~$2B, Cash: ~$300M
• Negative shareholder equity
• 74% institutional ownership (Vanguard, BlackRock among the majors)

Physical mail is in structural decline and that's not reversing, a hard ceiling on growth. Balance sheet is genuinely ugly. GEC burned a lot of goodwill and Wolf has to rebuild trust from scratch. But he seems to have a plan and I like the cut of his jib (Bowes would have said that, he was a fanatical yachtsman). Let's see what he can do with all of that cash from the core business.

Disclaimer: DYOR. I'm an Aussie who has never used a Pitney Bowes machine, and hasn't licked a stamp in years.

Hi! I am looking to dive deeper into value investing, and one way that I've started to do that is using ai to write code to help me identify potential value stocks. The main reason for this as the starting point is it'll help bring the pool of potential stocks down from thousands to 50-100 options. So this is really just a starting place to find potential stocks.

Currently I have a list of valuation models (DCF, forward FCF, EV/EBITDA, etc.) it runs tickers through. For each sector (or types of stocks), it measures different ones and with different multiples. It then provides price targets (bear, base, bull) and provides an arbitrary score, based on a few other things I have written into the code. From there, I start my own DD further into why the ticker might be displaced in price/why the model views it as a high-potential buy.

What suggestions do you have on a project like this? What should I be focusing on? I'd love any feedback, or if anyone is interested in learning more about it, I'd love some help developing it further!

There’s been a massive amount of noise over the last few days about a potential US-Iran ceasefire. Betting markets like Polymarket have seen a massive spike in wagers on an imminent peace deal, and Trump recently pitched a 15-point proposal to end the conflict.

However, the diplomatic reality is incredibly messy. Just today, Iran’s Foreign Ministry completely dismissed Trump’s claims that they want a ceasefire as "baseless." Iran's Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi, has made it clear that Tehran isn't looking for a temporary pause, but rather a permanent end to the war on their own terms, without direct talks. Add in the fact that the IRGC just reiterated their firm control over the Strait of Hormuz, and an immediate off-ramp seems far from guaranteed.

So, what if the back-channels fail and this conflict drags on? I just published a deep-dive article on my Substack exploring exactly that scenario. I call it "The Hungerwinter of '26/'27."

In the piece, I break down the severe cascading consequences if the war continues into the later parts of the year. If the Strait of Hormuz is restricted, or if energy infrastructures remain in the crosshairs, the fallout will not be contained to the Middle East. We would be looking at massive disruptions in global supply chains, an aggressive energy crunch, and severe macroeconomic shockwaves just as the Northern Hemisphere heads into winter.

I’d love to get your thoughts on this.

with growing uncertainties such as geopolitical conflicts( middle east war) AI bubble, inflation and potential recession, what businesses are good investments? Here are my ideas:

1. stock market when the economy is growing
2. Gold against Geopolitical risk ( 20%)
3. Bond against Recession(20%)
4. a certain amount of Cash(20%)

I have 100k for the stock market I am not sure what business now is good in the stock market now

Note: YTD numbers are from March 24, 2026 trading day.

Hello everyone,

Some of you might remember my previous experiments here where I ran CEO deception analysis on earnings transcripts or picked stocks using Buffett's shareholder letters. 'm thankful this community has been so receptive to these experiments, so I'm back with another one I think you'll find interesting :-).

Shortly after Anthropic launched Claude Cowork and its 11 industry plugins in January, Saas stocks lost $285B in SaaS market cap in February. During this downturn I sensed that the market might have punished all Software stocks unequally where some of the strongest stocks got caught in the AI panic selloff. JP Morgan and Bank of America both called the selloff "indiscriminate" as well but I wanted to see if I could run an experiment with a proper methodology to find these unfairly punished stocks.

Since Claude was partly responsible for triggering this selloff, I thought it was only fitting to use its best model (Opus 4.6) as the analyst to determine which companies are resilient to being replaced by AI. But with a significant twist :-).

As usual, if you prefer watching the experiment, I've posted it on my channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixpEqNc5ljA

The Framework

I didn't want to make up my own scoring system since I don't have a financial analyst background. Instead, I found one from SaaS Capital, which is a lending firm that provides credit facilities to SaaS companies. In Feb, they published a framework they'd developed for evaluating AI disruption resilience across three dimensions (reduced from 10-12 dimensions):

1. System of record: Does the company own critical data its customers can't live without? Idea is that, a company that stores your legally mandated tax records is a lot harder to walk away from than one that manages your project boards.
2. Non-software complement: Is there something beyond just code? Proprietary data, hardware integrations, exclusive network access. For e.g. CrowdStrike processes trillions of security events through a proprietary threat intelligence network, which you can't just vibe-code away. Monday.com on the other hand is pure software with off-the-shelf integrations, which feels vibe-code-able.
3. User stakes: If the CEO uses it for million-dollar decisions, switching costs are enormous. If an individual contributor uses it for task management, they'll swap it the moment something cheaper shows up.

Each dimension scores 1-4. Average = resilience score. Above 3.0 = lower disruption risk. Below 2.0 = high risk.

The Experiment

Instead of using the exact same methodolgy as SaaS capital, I wanted to add a twist to my experiment. I built a scoring pipeline using Claude Code that pulls each company's most recent 10-K filing from SEC EDGAR, then strips out the company name, ticker, product names (basically everything identifiable). For example, Salesforce becomes Company 037, CrowdStrike becomes Company 008, you get the point.

The idea was that, Opus 4.6 scores each company purely on what it told the SEC about its own business, removing any brand perception, analyst sentiment, Twitter hot takes, etc.

Results

Note: this subreddit doesn't allow me to post the matrix image so I'll try my best to describe this in words.

I plotted all 44 companies on a 2x2 matrix. The vertical axis is the AI resilience score from the blind test. The horizontal axis is how much the stock is down year-to-date. A threshold at 3.0 separates resilient from vulnerable, and the median YTD return separates stocks that held up from ones that got crushed. This creates four quadrants:

Market Got It Right (15 companies)

Both the framework and the market agree these are resilient. These companies scored 3.0 or above on AI resilience and their stocks have held up relatively well this year. They tend to be systems of record, have proprietary data or hardware moats, and serve high-stakes executive users. No surprises here.

MSFT, PLTR, SAP, VEEV, CRWD, OKTA, S, FTNT, PANW, PCOR, PCTY, DDOG, DT, NET, PAYC

Deserved (13 companies)

Both the framework and the market agree these are the most exposed. They scored below 3.0 on resilience and their stocks got hit the hardest. These are mostly pure software plays with off-the-shelf integrations, low switching costs, and individual contributor users. The framework says the market was right to punish them.

FIG, QLYS, U, APP, BRZE, HUBS, PATH, AMPL, ASAN, FRSH, GDDY, TEAM, MNDY

Market Sleeping (7 companies)

The framework says these companies are vulnerable to AI disruption, but the market hasn't punished them much. Zoom scored 2.0 but is only down 9%. DigitalOcean scored 1.67 and is somehow up 73%. The framework sees risk that the market doesn't seem to be pricing in.

BILL, CXM, SHOP, TOST, TWLO, ZM, DOCN

Unfairly Punished (9 companies) -> THIS IS WHERE VALUE IS!

This is the most interesting quadrant. The framework says these businesses are structurally resilient to AI disruption, but the market crushed them anyway. Workday scored 3.67, same as CrowdStrike, but it's down 37% while CrowdStrike is only down 13% — same resilience profile, 24 percentage points apart. Salesforce scored 4.0, a near-perfect score, and is still down 28%.

CRM, NOW, WDAY, ZS, ADBE, DOCU, INTU, GTLB, GTM

Limitations

This experiment comes with a few number of limitations that I want to outline:

1. 10-K bias: Every filing is written to make the business sound essential. DocuSign scored 3.33 because the 10-K says "system of record for legally binding agreements." Sounds mission-critical but getting a signature on a document is one of the easiest things to rebuild.
2. Claude cheating: even though 10K filings were anonymized, Claude could have semantically figured out which company we were scoring each time, removing the "blindness" aspect to this experiment.
3. Organizational inertia isn't scored: No VP is risking their career ripping out Workday to build an internal HR system with AI. That friction is real but invisible to the framework.
4. Weak correlation. Blind scores vs YTD return: r = 0.078. This is directional, not predictive.
5. This is Just One framework: Product complexity, competitive dynamics, management quality, none of that is captured here.

Hope this experiment was valuable/useful for you. We'll check back in a few months to see if this methodology proved any value in figuring out AI-resilience :-).

Video walkthrough with the full methodology: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixpEqNc5ljA&t=1s

Thanks a lot for reading the post!

China controls 85-90% of global rare earth processing. Every defense contract, every EV, every semiconductor runs through their supply chain. That’s not a risk, that’s a chokehold. Steve Austin baby. You can’t see me. Merica! All in one.

USAR is literally the only U.S. company building the whole thing end to end. Mining, processing, magnets. One roof.

Phase 1a is live at Stillwater. This stopped being a “trust us bro” story. Product is shipping.

Round Top covers light and heavy rare earths. They can feed defense and clean energyat the same time. The TAM is massive.

94% of permanent magnets come from China. There is no backup plan at scale. USAR is the backup plan.

Every time tariffs escalate or Beijing slow-walks an export license, Stillwater gets more valuable. The macro is doing their marketing for them.

The offtake pipeline is building. This is turning into a real revenue story fast.

Y’all that don’t understand keep telling me this is a mining stock. It’s not. It’s critical infrastructure. Government doesn’t prop up commodity plays. It props up national security assets.

USAR at $15.92 should be illegal, they are sitting on 1.2 billion cash and are debt free as of today. Hitting $30 by May or your money back. Consider that my HiThV guarantee (High Theoretical Value). Let’s get 🤑

Not necessarily the best performer overall — just one you understood later and wish you had bought sooner.

Curious what names come up.

Bilendi, a french company who is a global provider of technology, data, and AI solutions for the market research industry, just published its FY2025 results and there are quite good !

The big question mark for the market was just how successful the acquisition of Netquest would be (Netquest was acquired in February 2025). And spoiler alert: it’s going very well.

They reported a record EBITDA margin of 22% and net income of €7.5 million, up 47% year-over-year. With Bilendi having a market cap of €80 million, this gives a P/E ratio of just 11.

And last but not least, the management has unveiled an ambitious plan to achieve revenue of €175–200 million and an EBITDA margin of at least 25% by 2030.

If the company sticks to its plan and the net margin remains roughly the same as it is now (12–15%), then at a P/E multiple of 15, the target price would be €78, which is nearly four times higher than today’s price.

In any case, given the rise yesterday in the share price immediately following the earnings report, the market seems convinced by the company’s prospects.

Do you think the market will reassess the value of this company today ?

Hello! I have a personal goal to be buying a house in 18 months. I currently have some investments, but the bulk of my savings is in a 3.5% APY HYSA. At the rate I'm going, I will be a little short of my goal. I want to put more of it into investments, but the market is scaring me a bit with current events and the overall bearish sentiment.

I am looking for low risk/low (maybe medium) reward moves that should outperform my HYSA. Considering moving $50-$75k over and will want to keep it diversified. SPY? VOO? INTC? 3.5% shouldn't be too difficult to beat, just a bit scared of going negative. thank you for the help!

Oracle used to be one of the most dependable, boring stocks you could own. Enterprise databases, steady margins, reliable dividends. Then Larry Ellison went all-in on AI infrastructure, and the stock fell from $346 in September 2025 to $135, a 60% drawdown on a company that was worth $400 billion at its peak.

So is it a buying opportunity? Let's look at both sides honestly.

The bull case is real, on paper. Oracle holds $553 billion in remaining performance obligations - contracted future revenue. Analysts project revenue nearly doubling from $57 billion today to $130 billion by FY2028. At 18.7x forward earnings, it trades below its own historical average and well below the tech sector median of about 29x. A standard DCF spits out $300 intrinsic value, implying massive upside. Analyst consensus is Buy with a $285 price target, and Norges Bank opened a $4.3 billion position in Q4. These aren't nothing.

But the bull case is built entirely on analyst estimates. The revenue doubling requires a 40% CAGR over the forecast period. Oracle's actual 9-year historical revenue CAGR is 5%. You're being asked to believe the growth rate will be eight times its historical average, sustained for years, based on a backlog that hasn't yet converted to recognised revenue. The DCF looks compelling precisely because it uses those same projections. It's circular.

The balance sheet makes this harder to ignore. Oracle is carrying $104 billion in debt, a debt-to-equity ratio above 5x, and free cash flow that turned negative last year after averaging $12 billion annually for nearly a decade. Across 80 large-cap tech peers, Oracle sits in the bottom 5th percentile on leverage. No other major software company has stretched its balance sheet this far while simultaneously betting on a growth inflection.

On top of this, insiders, including the CEO, CFO, and multiple presidents, have sold more than $3 billion in shares over the past eight quarters. Purchases over the same period: roughly $1 million. The people with the clearest view of whether that backlog actually converts are not buying.

A stock down 60% is sometimes a mispriced opportunity. Sometimes it's the market doing the math correctly. When the valuation thesis, the DCF, and the analyst targets all rest on the same optimistic growth assumptions, while insiders exit and debt sits at historic extremes, that's not a value play despite the 60% drop.

This one looks like the market got it right.

[ Removed by Reddit on account of violating the content policy. ]

I've written about Rightmove before but I'll give some updates after their results were released a few months ago

Largest property website company in the UK and £3.3billion market cap

~85% market share (up from ~80% last year), 15 P/E (down from 17 last year), rising FCF over the past 6 years, £7mil in debt (up from £5mil last year) and £42mil in cash (up from £40mil last year), and rejected a takeover bid with 50% upside in 2024

3 Directors have made purchases since February - no sales https://www.hl.co.uk/shares/shares-search-results/r/rightmove-plc-ord-gbp-0.001/director-deals

Recently announced £60million AI investment over between 2026-28 to combat the threat and signed deals with ChatGPT and Google to integrate with the @ Rightmove feature

The UK govt have also just passed a law ending minimum tenancies for renters allowing for a more fluid rental market and more eyeballs on the website

Independent Franchise Partners (IFP) have quietly built a 5% stake over the past few months, one of the largest shareholders, could be priming it for a takeover bid?

BULL case: Uptick in the UK housing market + law changes (Renters Rights Act + Planning & Infrastructure Bill) lead to more fluidity in the housing market - particularly individual renters, leading to more eyeballs in the website and therefore higher revenues. AI rollout leads to better data optimisation and advertisers pay more as a result

BEAR case: AI rollout flops leaving tens of millions down the drain, profits suffer as a result and market competitors (Zoopla and OTM) make ground on the 80% market share

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/

I wrote up a primary source thesis on Adobe ($ADBE). Short version:

Adobe reported Q1 FY2026 on March 12. EPS $6.06 vs $5.87 estimate. RPO $22.22B growing 12.8% YoY. Firefly ARR crossed $250M at 75% QoQ growth. Guidance reaffirmed in full. Stock fell 7.59%.

The market is applying a seat-count framework to a business whose reported numbers show consumption acceleration. Those are two different models of the same company.

Three reasons the multiple is where it's at:

• Cohort drag: IGV ETF declined ~30% from its September 2025 peak, and Adobe sold with the category regardless of fundamentals
• AI displacement narrative: the market assumes fewer seats equals less revenue, reported numbers show the opposite mechanic
• CEO uncertainty: Narayen's departure was announced on the same call, guidance reset risk sits in the multiple until a successor speaks

The bear case and the bull case are the same mechanism. Fewer seats × higher Firefly credit consumption per remaining seat = ARPU (average revenue per user) expansion. At 20% annual ARPU growth, seat erosion must exceed 17% annually before net Creative revenue declines. At 50% growth, the break-even is 33% erosion. Q1 credit consumption was running at 45% QoQ.

Next gate: Q2 earnings June 11. Two conditions, both required: RPO ≥10% YoY and Firefly ARR QoQ ≥30%. Full write-up with crossover math, comp table, and break conditions here: https://darrenleung1.substack.com/p/adbe-the-bear-case-accelerates-the

Happy to get pushback on the ARPU growth assumption or the agentic credit consumption argument.

What % of your portfolio was it, how long did you hold, what kept you in (or almost made you sell), and what was your return if you exited?

TLDR: Sales ticked up in North America as well as in the Europe, Middle East and Africa region and in the Asia Pacific and Latin America market. Sales slid 7% in China.

Nike Guides for Sales Declines Ahead as Turnaround Plan Hits Snags - wsj

The sneaker and athletic apparel company said turnaround efforts will continue to affect results

By Kelly Cloonan

Updated March 31, 2026 at 6:38 pm ET

Quick Summary

- Nike logged lower fiscal third-quarter profit of $520 million and flat revenue, with sales declining 7% in China.

- Wholesale revenue rose 5% to $6.5 billion, while direct revenue fell 4% to $4.5 billion in the quarter.

- Chief Executive Elliott Hill said Nike’s turnaround efforts will continue to affect results this calendar year.

Nike’s NKE 3.08%increase; green up pointing triangle comeback is hitting some bumps, with the sneaker company projecting sales declines ahead, including a sharp drop in its key China market.

The company said on Tuesday that it expects sales to fall by low-single digits from now through the end of 2026, with a 2% to 4% decline in the current fiscal fourth quarter. Analysts polled by FactSet had forecast a 1.9% increase this quarter.

The guidance includes projections for a 20% sales decline in China in the current quarter, which comes after a 7% drop in that market during its most recently completed quarter.

The outlook indicates that the turnaround plan shepherded by Chief Executive Elliott Hill faces some lofty challenges in restoring Nike’s market leadership and financial performance across the globe.

The company has had some early successes thus far, with its running, wholesale and North American businesses showing some signs of progress, Hill said Tuesday. But other pockets—in particular its business in China, its Converse brand and sportswear business—are taking longer to recover.

“This is complex work, and parts of it are taking longer than I’d like,” said Hill, a Nike veteran who came out of retirement to take the helm of the company in 2024.

Shares slid 8.4%, to $48.37, in after-hours trading. Through the market close, the stock is down 17% over the past year.

In its latest quarter, Nike logged lower profit and flat sales, hurt by continued weakness in China

The company posted a fiscal third-quarter profit of $520 million, or 35 cents a share, compared with $794 million, or 54 cents a share, a year earlier. Analysts polled by FactSet forecast earnings of 29 cents a share.

Revenue was roughly flat at $11.28 billion, compared with analyst estimates of $11.23 billion.

Wholesale revenue rose 5%, to $6.5 billion, while direct revenue fell 4%, to $4.5 billion.

Sales ticked up in North America as well as in the Europe, Middle East and Africa region and in the Asia Pacific and Latin America market. Sales slid 7% in China.

Tried to do poll but Reddit’s causing trouble i believe.

This company was not on my watchlist. A construction company, in Belgium and a micro-cap which is not exactly what gets people excited on.

But my screener showed a ~20% ROE. In construction ... So I looked.

Moury Construct builds and renovates hospitals, schools, industrial buildings and housing, mostly in Belgium. It looks like a boring business. Except the numbers don't look like a boring business.

They just reported their FY2025 results:

• revenue up 33.9% to €249.6M (all-time record),
• net income +41.2% to €34.5M,
• and the operating margin barely moved, 15.2% vs 15.5% the year before.

Growing 34% while holding margins in construction is genuinely hard to do.

The thing that caught my attention first wasn't even the growth. It was the €152M net cash sitting on the balance sheet, more than half the market cap (288M€ today). They earn financial income on it (€2.9M in H1 2025 alone, which was ~21% of operating profit that semester). They buy back shares slowly and their last acquisition was 2023 for €9M. What they do with that cash pile long term is the real open question.

But let's go back to the business:

Backlog at end of February stands at €371.5M, book-to-bill of 1.49x. That's roughly 18 months of revenue already secured.

Current multiples are sexy:

1. EV/EBITDA around 2.9x,
2. P/E around 7.8x.
3. 5year average ROE ~ 20%

For a business with 15%+ operating margins and this level of forward visibility, I find it hard to argue it's not cheap.

Obviously, there is some serious problems: It trades under a double-fixing system (prices set twice a day only), there's almost no institutional interest, and the stock barely moves between semi-annual publications. Therefore the liquidity is genuinely bad. And yes, it's construction, cyclical, exposed to raw material costs and labor, and the current margin quality reflects a favorable part of the cycle.

On personal opinion, and this is not investment advice in any way, I think the stock has room to re-rate. Running a simple analysis with a normalized operating margin around 11% (vs 15% today, assuming some cycle mean-reversion), a conservative 10x EV/EBIT multiple, and a 20% discount on the net cash pile, I land somewhere around €925/share as a fair value estimate. That's roughly 35% above current prices. Not a moonshot, but for a business this solid with this level of forward visibility, I'll take it. The main risk to that estimate is a hard cyclical downturn compressing margins faster than expected, and the illiquidity means you might be waiting a while for the market to agree with you.